Travis County Commissioners Court
July 10, 2007
Item 6
Number 6 I was told last time we probably need to take up in executive session, but why don't we have the open court part right now, is that okay? And then barbara wilson I think wants to give us some legal advice on law that pertains to the judges, six is to consider and take appropriate action on draft advertisement for public hearing to set elected officials salaries for fy '08 and calendar for actions for the remainder of the salary setting process, and do we have a draft calendar?
>> actually in last week's backup, I'm sorry, I apologize, I didn't attach it for this week, what the schedule actually reflects is that you would take action on an ad today, that ad would appear in the chron call on July 19th, and the ad would be to hold a public hearing for the setting of the salaries on July 31, and that then allows for your grievance process to begin if anyone chooses to, and has the Commissioner's court actually setting the salaries on your regular Tuesday meeting on August 21st, that is at the end of the grievance process. So that is the calendar, and to prepare for the budget to be adopted on September 25th. The ad that you have in your backup for this week is an ad that I can corporates the -- incorporates the footnotes related to judicial longevity pay, and sets -- it has the calculations at 3 and a half percent for 3 and a half percent increase for elected officials that are not on the judicial pay scale, and I would note that -- that we have included the jp in the judicial pay scale so there is a 3 and a half percent for the district attorney, county attorney, county judge, Commissioner's court, constables, the sheriff, the district clerk, county clerk, tax assessor collector and the county treasurer.
>> I would request one change.
>> uh-huh.
>> I've only been here since January and so I feel that I can't really expect a raise this soon in my term, so I hate to do this at the last minute, if it were, but if a footnote could be added to keep me at the current salary because I haven't been here for very long.
>> we can do that. We also do a statement that indicates that it is the right of any elected official to make arrangements through the auditor's office to decline the increase in their payroll, so in order to be able to have a single page ad we removed that footnote and actually put in it the heading, but I can try to manipulate that to put a footnote back, if you would like.
>> that would be great.
>> the intention is not to have the da receive the coal if there is one.
>> the district attorney is included. The 3 and a half percent is applied to the county portion of his salary.
>> we have proposed change zero on backup.
>> it's zero on the state portion and says 3 and a half percent on the county portion, I believe unless you may --
>> I have one line, it has 125,000 -- 00, 125,000 as the proposed '08 salary. County attorney -- county judge -- no, district attorney, oh, now I see, district attorney is here twice. Okay. See it.
>> it's the same, we try to maybe sure it's separated out between the state and the county portion.
>> susan?
>> judge, I would like two minutes, because of the timing under the law of when elected officials have to start being advertised, it's an official process it doesn't necessarily coincide when the revenue come out for the rest of the workforce, what has happened traditionally in the past other than last year is that by the time we got to comprehensive analysis of the workforce beyond the preliminary budget, even though the elected officials, citizens committee, normally recommends that the elected officials get the same percentage as is available to the workforce, that number is not available at the time of doing the ad, and so I would like to make it -- an argument that the elected official ad include an increase of 6%, and I think last year what you did is you put a number in there not to exceed so that was an outside and you can come down once you looked at the workforce as a whole, and let me tell you where I'm coming from on that with regard to the workforce and elected officials salaries. First of all, I think there is a tremendous misconception in the community of what the county does and an assumption that the county really takes care of the doughnut around the city of Austin and all other services are primarily offer and paid for by the taxpayers that reside within the city, I think it's appropriate to point out that is absolutely not the case. It's important to understand what the government does and its function. But Travis County, which is primarily financed through the property tax, basically finances the entire juvenile justice system, just -- the court proceedings, the -- for every person that lives in the county, just not nose that do not live in the city of Austin. We handle domestic relations including child support, we handle the entire adult justice system, both civil and criminal. The state does pay 125,000 per district judge, the rest is pretty much pick ud up here and that system supports every taxpayer in Travis County. In the oh 0 we handle the prosecution for all of those cases. We handle the adjudication, we handal the probation, and also I'm listening to the discussions here today, rehabilitation and people who might enter the justice system, Travis County pays for the medical examiner again for the whole county, we run the corrections system where all misdemeanors that are sentenced as well as people awaiting trial, and felons awaiting trial are residents of our jail and our sherrif's department runs that, the constables and jp's handle not only the volume from the constables and the sheriff, but they also handle those cases from the department of public service. We do all of the tax collection for all of -- almost all of the jurisdictions. We do vehicle registration and collections. Our people do all of the deed recording, and the marriage licenses and this is really a very broad overview, but my -- my point is that it is a very large government that in fact provides an enormous amount of services to all residents of Travis County. And so I think it's appropriate to say that we need to compensate our workforce and therefore elected officials and since you've kind of connected -- or the committee connected the two, I think this is the appropriate time to look at that. The elected official salaries that are easily comparable is the county judge and the Commissioners and in both cases, although we are one of the largest counties in Texas, our pay scale is ninth, and we are for the county judge 47% behind dallas county which is the highest paid tarrant county which is a fairly comparable county to us in terms of population. The county judge's salary is in fact 30% lower than tarrant county. The same innick at this occur with the Commissioner, we are nightbeat th in those counties, even counties likely dal goare higher than Travis County. Our Commissioners are paid 44% lower than dallas county and we are -- I believe it's also, I didn't do the percentage here, but significantly less than tarrant county as well. So if you look at appropriate benchmark, I think it's extremely fair statement to say, this is from a survey done by the Texas association of counties, that elected officials in travis are not -- certainly not overpaid, and are -- I think the argument can remain are significantly underpaid, especially the Commissioners and a judge, and as a reminder, I'm not appointed by the Commissioner or the judge, for public's information. In terms of population, we are in a tremendous workforce shortage in this community. We have a very low unemployment rate. And I -- as a matter of fact, just attended a training program last week and they were talking about the crisis that organizations will be facing in the future as the baby boomers retire, and a lack of a competent workforce, and that is important for us because you can't lose your whole workforce and think you're going to pick that up again, because it's not going to happen, and so the services that I mentioned and their support services under it are -- require people who have the ability to do that work, and we are competing with not only other governments, but the private sector for those people, and the best people are under demand for everyone. If we do not keep up with compensating our workforce, then these services will in fact suffer. As a comparison of governments here, in the preliminary budget we have 3.5%, and I think it's fair to say that that amount will not support our workforce in this economy. There are groups in town that are recruiting more and more businesses to come in, and as they come in, they recruit our people, and we are not meeting the kind of wages that we need to pay people to take care of them. We have interlocal agreements with the city of Austin for one, and I point to this just as a comparison, because this is paid out of our tax base, four star flight and e.m.s., for instance n. That package they are recommending 3.8% performance pay and a 2% premium, so they are recommending 5.8%, and that comes into an interlocal that our very same taxpayers pay, and so with that group of people we are supporting at 5.8%, it is hard to make the argument that the people who render the other services in Travis County do not have the same problems. I look to what the city of Austin did last year, because they did a massive market study, and rightfully so, I mean I understand why they did that, but what they did as a comparison, we gave all of our people 5% that was available across the board, the city of Austin made available 3.5% performance pay. They added another 1.5% for those that exceed potential, and also an average of 4% market adjustments which 86% of the workforce received as well as a 2% lump sum. So in that one year, that amounted to an average of a 9% where our people got five. The other thing the city of Austin did, again, I understand why they're doing this, is they increased the vacation days to their people, and that is not free. When you give people more vacation then you have to hire more people to render those services and that is an additional benefit. So I use the city as a comparison because our people are here. I think we have reached the point to be honest, that the people who render services for Travis County, unless they're at the very top let me, can no longer afford to live in the community that they serve, and that is becoming -- I think that is a sad state, period. But it is -- the impact is exacerbated with the gas prices because now if they live in hays county or as far out as they can afford to buy something, they now have to commute and come in, so I think it's important to look at the -- at our workforce. I think we have a good workforce. I think that we need to be able to retain and recruit, I know in my own office, that's the one I'm most familiar with, the specific qualifications, but we are seng fewer, wer applicants, much fewer that are qualified. So the reason that I'm bringing this up with regard to elected official salary, is because your -- your committee recommended that elected officials get the same increase as the general workforce. And I would like to make a very strong argument that we consider 6%. We will know after the preliminary budget when we see the revenue esmate that comes after that a little better feeling for how much money there is with, and you'll know whether you want to increaseu have to advertise this soon, I guess I would encourage you to either use the format you did last year that says that you wouldn't executive director 6% or to put -- exceed 6% or put the 6% in there. As I said, it's timing of the Texas law that requires this discussion.
>> legally if the intention of the ad is notice an opportunity to file a grievance, if we put a number out there, and reduce that number later, what is the legal effect of that?
>> we've got a problem either way, because if you put a number out there that is larger than what you in fact give them in the end, then they could -- could rightfully grieve and rightfully say that they didn't have notice of the actual salary you were intending, if you -- if you don't put the number out there, you can't go higher than what you have put out there, and so the --
>>
>> [inaudible]
>> that sounds like a good idea, that gives me more time to think.
>> so we -- we need to approve this ad when?
>> in order for it to appear in the chronicle on the 19th.
>> okay.
>> and, you know, we can have discussions if the percent you can direct me to change the percentage, I believe, and the -- I've got all the numbers run in addition to me adding the footnote or I can prepare and add the footnote before executive session so it can be reviewed again if that is acceptable.
>> or afterwards.
>> if we approve a number, percentage is one number that looks like it's applied to current officials, we can't say who they are, but we need to land on the number today.
>> that's correct.
>> but it's not a feeling -- is it a feeling? If we were to go above it, that also would be an issue with notice?
>> yes.
>> it's a very awkward.
>> because it's notice to the public as well as the elected official.
>> yes, the notice to the public is the advertisement you put in the paper, you can argue the notice to the elected officials is really the letter they're going to receive from the judge's office within the next 24 to 48 hours telling them what salary is in the ad. Now, I need to chat with some of the other people in my office about an idea that occurred to me as we were sitting here to see what -- whether they think it will fly legally, and if they do, then I may have a suggestion for you, but, you know, until I've chatted, I don't know.
>> executive session this afternoon?
>> I was going to say unless you're planning on going in right now, yes, sir.
>> and if I can be of help, holler.
>> yes, sir.
>> christian, can I have you come to the microphone, please? Before you get there, susan, I think you're very eloquent with -- with laying out, you know, what you have laid out, and I too wonder how long we can continue to really compete in the workforce, I mean given what we pay. I don't think there's any question about that, but where I am really at a loss for what to do with this, we cannot continue to grow the county budget like we are growing it. Now, I think we're very capable of taking on our needs for our employees, but I think what that means is that, you know, you -- I mean this court has to sit down and determine where they're going to spend money and where they're not going to spend money. I mean christian, my question to you would be let's just say that hypothetically we were going to go from a 3 and a half to a 6% across the board, what would that do to what we all voted on back in January that we were going to keep the ceiling on spending this year at 4% at the greatest? Would that blow the top off of that given what we -- unless we're going to start, you know, really doing some surgery, I mean some major surgery, I mean since we have a doctor in the house, to the -- to the budget this I mean in your opinion, what would -- what would 6% do versus what we looked at at 3.5%?
>> it would exceed that 4% limit. It would be the eyes of the beholder as to whether that would blow the top off or simply exceed it. The calculation -- you are going to have numerous choices before you with respect to compensation. This is simply the first from a financial standpoint, small issue. That you will be addressing. Now, you have a work session this Thursday where you'll be receiving a formal presentation about pay issues for the attorneys, and a wide variety of other job families. You've already received issues regarding could be stability pay. You have compression, which has been eloquently argued before you. You have the issues that the auditor has identified with respect to recruitment and retention in a -- in a robust market. You have your annual dance -- excuse me, you have your annual issue of how close, if at all, to match peace officers to Austin police department. Among other issues before you. Those are many, many millions of dollars worth of logical needs out there. The back in January, you voted to look at compensation in the 3.5 or 4% range. We can balance a budget, we know, at a 3 -- if all employees receive 3.5%, that is about 6 and a half million dollars. You can do the math as to how many percentage -- how many dollars for each percentage. Now, not -- you will have choices as to whether or not to necessarily -- whether to target some of those resources, if we can go beyond 6 and a half million in the preliminary budget, my own desire is to do so. We may be able to. We receive revenue estimate next week. I believe that we can -- we will be able to get beyond 6 and a half million for all compensation, how much is still unclear, but when you're looking at every percentage point being a million seven, a million eight, going from an average of 3 and a half to an average of 6 is a large amount of money, is it -- is there a sound argument? Certainly. Is there tax freedom dues? Certainly. We just received a tax run and we will be at the effective tax rate and you will see a decrease in the homestead tax in the preliminary budget. Umm, because that is based on values. So you have many choices, you have many levers, and we have traditionally, annually had a mismatch between the elected official ad and reality, because of the timing. And I think that is simply the kind of the nature of the beast, the question as to whether do you wish to display a maximum is a strategy that I'm sure you'll be hearing the pluses and minuses in executive session. That is a long answer to a simple question, but I think you needed it.
>>
>> [inaudible]
>> but for math, out of a $400 million, 75%, so if you -- if you figure that you've got 300 million bucks, and you go to 6%, you got $18 million right there that you're going to spend on salaries. And those are choices that you have part of the budget process, but if you have to figure out whether you just grow it or accommodate it internally, it's hard to accommodate it internally, it's a challenge to grow it, both are feasible.
>> I do have a number. To add to the preliminary budget what is already in the preliminary budget, to give -- to lay a 6% on all classifications, and christian is right, there are many issues out there, some of those would fall under that umbrella and some might not, but to bring compensation across the board would require including benefits 5.2 million across the board.
>> additional?
>> yes. And, you know, one of the things is that you're right, Commissioner, 80% of what is spend is on salaries, what that tells you is those are the services, people rendering the services, and, you know, the argument about growing government is an interesting one because you don't see an outcry for less services, what you see is they want the same or greater services for less money. Is the obligation to continue to provide these services atlas than market fall upon the back of the people who work for this government? That really becomes the issue unless you pull back the services that are rendered.
>> not to be argumentative. No, what I hear from people is I want government to act like I act like in my house. I know that there are services that need to be rendered. And there are things that I have to do in order to maintain a household. And what I have to do is I have to make decisions on this year, given the fact that I've got more gasoline, you know, bills coming in, that I've got higher electricity, they've got, you know, you name it, most likely higher property taxes, given the fact that we're going to have an increase again in appraisals, what people want you to do as government, is they look you in the eye and they say I want you to operate government just like I have to operate my household, so what are you not going to have in order to run government cost effectively? And I will -- I am completely on the same page with you, susan, whenever -- and I said it before, the biggest and the most, I think, important need and resource that we have to run government are our people, and so maybe every year what we ought to do is just sit down and say before any department submits anything about wanting a pencil, about wanting a room built, about wanting an fte, about wanting anything, an automobile, you just go "what money is there left", I mean given the fact you want to go in and apply oo ceiling with regards to how much you're willing to grow, and I think that most people can bow on 3 and a half to 4%, maybe 4%, because I think you can attach it to cpi, there's concrete things you can attach growth to in spending that the average every day person goes "i get that because I have to, you know, do that myself". And maybe that is what we need to do with budget every year, which would probably make budget real easy for pbo to say, okay, I mean if you want to grow it four to four and a half percent, here is how many extra dollars you got, now, let's first go to compensation and make sure that we are where we need to be, and everything else that is a real easy write up for pbo, you just go unless it's cost neutral, don't talk to me about this or that, tell me how to find it within your department, because what your department is going to get with that 3 and a half or 4 and a half percent growth is going to be eaten up with compensation, because everybody understands that compensation is the first thing -- I mean very seldom do I talk to a department that doesn't want to talk to you about compensation. I mean it's kind of like I don't have enough, and we know that this community is expensive, which is also the reason why whenever you read those things off about, you know, tarrant is more, you get hidalgo, you get more, and compare those places to live versus living in our community.
>> a lot more.
>> if you really get upside down with your numbers, that in itself justifies why we need to look at compensation as being a major thing, but what it forces us to do is really look ourselves in the mirror and go "what are you not going to spend money on in government?" you're going to have to tell somebody, you know what, we can't do that anymore.
>> is there anything on here we can't (k) not spend money on? Are any of these positions ancillary?
>> I don't know.
>> no. Going back to these items, though, none of these positions are ancillary, the only question before us, I think, because this cannot be -- this must be a ceiling and a floor is what are we going to set it at? We are going to set it today, right?
>> after executive session.
>> the question is whether we can advertise a range,.
>> I understand that the issue we need to talk about.
>> you understand my question on whether we can advertise between this and that and then have the amount -- you have two amounts basically, so...
>> we're going to executive session, this -- this discussion is appropriate because ultimately it relates to salaries for elected officials.
>> yes, it does.
>> and the committee recommended --
>> thank you, susan, for reminding us again about, you know, how everybody is a citizen of Travis County, and there's certain things that county government funds fully versus any other entity and so, yeah...
>> yeah, I don't think the community does understand.
>> and that really needs to be understood, and I guess we need to say it every -- every month, maybe?
>> to stick to our schedule, we need to take action this afternoon and we will. All right? So we'll call this item up for an executive session discussion when we get to that point in today's meeting which will be this afternoon.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed a variety of items as part of our voting session today. We discussed no. 6, which involves the advertisement of the elected officials' salaries for fy '08 and we're advised by counsel that at a later date we can change their salary but the first advertisement is simply to advertise to the public that amount. And I move that we advertise at 5%, and the only thing good about 5 is that it's between 3 1/2 and 6. And I'm banking on our ability as the revenue projections are refined to decide whether to leave it there or move it up or down depending on what we do for rank and file employees. And barbara just reminded us that that's the ceiling. Can't go up but you can come down.
>> that's right.
>> so the question is whether we do 5 or 6. I'm real, real comfortable with 5 but I can live with 6. I can withdraw that. In fact, I withdraw that motion and make another one at 6%. Discussion?
>> my concern is
>> [inaudible] in the officeholders on the left that -- that it will be at 6% and that coming down from that, which I think is inevitable, will greatly increase the grieving.
>> our elected officials, we set it at 6 but you have to understand it will end up somewhere between 3 1/2% and 6%. We set it the highest because by law we cannot go up but we can come down and we will have additional revenue projections over the next 2 to 3 weeks, to which we must respond, as a sort of explanation. But I do understand your concern.
>> so are we saying that there is a floor of 3.5 because I think we don't have to set it at 4.
>> no, that was just county judges opining. The motion is 6%, basically.
>> and that's the ceiling.
>> doesn't say anything else.
>> and then you can come back down.
>> except we'll do the right thing in terms of how we deal with rank and file employees and how we respond to additional revenue projections. Any more discussion?
>> let me say I do want to give directions on the footnoting on no. 8 where it shows the precinct Commissioner making 77611 for 2007. I would like that to remain the salary that I make, and we can end it right there. I mean, that's what I will -- what I'd like to have it.
>> any more discussions for changes to the proposal?
>> can he were put in this footnote 9 regarding ability to reject the increase?
>>
>> [inaudible] but that wording will be there.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> okay. That's fine. I would offer a substitute motion of leaving it at 2.5%. That's the feeling.
>> I second that.
>> that's your motion to leave it at 3.5 and that was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any discussion of that? All in favor of that motion. Show Commissioners, egg heart, Davis, voting for that substitution, and the voting against it show the other three members of the Commissioners court, Gomez, dougherty and yours truly. We are now back to the original motion, which is to set it at the ceiling of 6%. Any more discussion? All in favor of that motion show Commissioner Gomez and yours truly voting in favor, voting against? Show Commissioner dougherty, Commissioner egg heart, Commissioner Davis, that motion fails -- the floor is now appropriate for an appropriate motion that may get three votes. I move that we set it at 5%. Is there a second?
>> second.
>> second by Commissioner Gomez. Discussion? All in favor of that motion, show Commissioner Gomez and yours truly voting in favor. Voting against? The rest of the court. What happens if we don't take action on this today but delay it until next week? And don't say the sky falls.
>> we would have to have an agenda item on the same day that your public hearing is held that would actually set salaries instead of delaying one week as we discussed earlier, because you would use that in the schedule today.
>> add this action back on -- this action back on next week.
>> I'll be happy to make one more motion if you are are willing to entertain it at 4.5%. It's like an auctioneer.
>> 4.5% is the motion by Commissioner egg heart, seconded by Davis. Any discussion of that motion? All in favor of that motion. Commissioners egg heart, Davis voting in favor. Voting against, joel, Commissioner gamez, dougherty and yours truly. We will have this item back on the agenda next week and between now and then we will have developed an innovative strategy that allows us to comply with the law. This is Tuesday, work session Thursday afternoon. That is not 72 hours from today. That is more like -- that is less than 48.
>> the other option that you do have is if you think that you could figure out what you want to do with sleeping on it one night, you could adjourn this one item till tomorrow sometime and take it up tomorrow. That's your other option, if you don't want to let it go for a full week. But that may not be of any use because it may take longer than that.
>> if we have five votes to do that, that makes sensz to me. We can meet at 9:00 a.m. But I'm not convinced that death even sues if we take this up next Tuesday. It is just we have to become much more efficient than we have been historically.
>> that's correct.
>> [laughter]
>> we will know what will be in the preliminary budget if we get the third revenue estimate on Monday we should be able to report on you -- to you -- on you Tuesday with what we expect the compensation reserve to be for all employees.
>> okay.
>> that may help you.
>> that's a vote for next Tuesday. Ms. Powell?
>> thank you.
>> I can hardly wait till then.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, July 11, 2007, 11:00 AM